Realm rework

[jock]

Lets just add more abusable mechanics before fixing the current ones. Also I always laughed when I see that land grabbing is botted. That is funny because there are just actually people with enough persistence to actually expand and people don’t understand so they think bots. Rest of the post is a abusable and won’t help. We don’t even have the simplest things such as realm maps in game or even separated build and destroy perms.

And if you were here for when realms were originally implemented you would know that they are not meant to be accessible by everyone and on top of that it was a way for factions to provide buffs to hermits and smaller villages, not for some weird village system that doesn’t fix the fact that there are dummy realms and then can choose who to deny the buffs to making it even worse.

this ^

@jock, out of curiosity have you ever developped, managed a realm?

Only 1% has done that, i have not done it no but i have had much input and information regarding current realms and have personally donated plenty of resources over many world to help realms and their buffs. I may not have had access to the UI directly but other components yes.

[Hohol32]

you are shit, and your head full of shit
remove this tread

[jock]

you are shit, and your head full of shit
remove this tread

ok bummer

[SnuggleSnail]

get realms out of my pointless gang violence simulator tbh

(queen btw)

[Apocoreo]

I like a lot of your ideas, particularly on oathing and vassals. I was going to make my own thread but you've given me a few different ideas and I hope you don't mind if I piggyback a bit. There might be a bit or overlap here

- Remove Border cairns and Seamarks
- Instead, a dignitary (with certain perms) can offer an oath of fealty to a village by clicking anywhere on its claim. The Lawspeaker gets a notification upon logging in and can accept or deny at any time at the idol. This costs authority to prevent spam.
- On accepting, the realms borders spread radially out from the idol. The more authority the village has, the wider the spread. The villages oath regularity costs the realm authority based on the distance from the capital, and from the nearest friendly border.
- Borders that overlap will meet in the middle.

This makes it harder to hold territory without the aid of villages, and incentivises powerful factions to keep the peace in their territory, and even aid their villages. We will also see more hollow forts with nothing but an idol to hold territory, granted, but this comes at the cost of maintaining the characters required. The goal is to make casual players more participant in realms, while still sworn and beholden to the real might of the realm.


With the size of realm's more limited, I thought there could be other means to expand: conquest. I envision vassal/subject states, rather than villages as vassals.

There would be three types on Subject, Vassal, Tributary, and Colony. At any time the subject overlord can Annex villages, seizing the territory and all costs associated this should cost authority.

Tributary
Upon reaching a foreign coronation stone you can right-click and select "conquer" The realm survives as a Tributary, their authority is taxed over time and the conquering realm gains access to the defeated realm's buffs. The Tributary gets nothing in return. The realm lives in relative peace as the mightier realm's bitch.

Vassal
Vassals surrender their independence to a greater power. 50% of their realm's buffs are copied to their overlord. In return they receive 10-25% of their overlord's buffs. This incentives the mightier realm to defend them and incentivises small-time lords, barons, and counts to recognize their betters.

Colony
A colony must be established by an already thriving realm. They are created the same way as a realm, but instead a Colonial Cairn is constructed. In return, 10% of the colony's authority is taxed to the overlord. The colony and overlord receive 25% of each other's buffs. Distance from the overlord is irrelevant; the purpose is for realms to establish holdings across oceans, where they can't influence directly.

Rebellion!
Every 3 months, a subject can rebel against its overlord, becoming an independent realm, losing all benefits and negatives. A petulant subject might have to be violently pacified constantly, more trouble than they're worth. Colonies would typically only rebel if they receive better buffs than their overlord and tire of their taxation.

Alliance
Realm rulers can meet in person to establish an alliance. This costs both parties equal authority and allows them to share 10% of each other's buffs. After 3 weeks, either party may end the alliance at any time. Although there is little reason to.


Well that's all I got. If it isn't obvious, no, I have never established a realm, I merely have ideas and find realms uninteresting and unrealistic to the majority of the playerbase as they stand. All my percentages are made up BS, to establish the differing values of the different subjects. I acknowledge power should remain in the hands of those that put the most time and effort into the game. I value the criticisms of those more experienced with realms as they are.

The subject ideas are mostly derived from Stellaris. but Jock's ideas of oathing villages were kind of the missing piece for me. The goal is to provide a more nuanced political landscape that everyone can participate in, if in a small way.

[SnuggleSnail]

R: Hey, wanna join my realm for some cool buffs!
V: We're scared... We want to remain neutral
R: Hey, is this your dock? Shame if something happened to it...

R: Hey, you're my enemy's vassal, right?
V: Ye, I wanted to be neutral but they threatened me
R: Hey, is this your dock? Shame if something happened to it...

I rly feel like anybody trying to push the notion "nuanced and interesting politics" in hafen has not at all experienced hafen politics. Anybody who wants nabs to be a valuable resource to realms is probably a bigger enemy to the nabs than the people who roam around on sneks KOing ppl in dugouts all day.

I rly hate that everybody is so in love with the idea of realm buffs. They're super abuseable, and you basically need to be the biggest autist in the game to take advantage of them. Adding even more buffs to realms, or a way to make them realistically outscale what others could reasonably achieve completely ruins industry, which is the entire game for like 50% of the population.

Realms in general encourage big gross blobby alliances, less than meteors, but they still contribute. Ironically, if realms were made more fun & interesting it would probably make the game way worse because of the social repercussions of more people wanting to interact with & abuse realms.

[Apocoreo]

R: Hey, wanna join my realm for some cool buffs!
V: We're scared... We want to remain neutral
R: Hey, is this your dock? Shame if something happened to it...

These people are foolish, and are turning down free buffs and painting a target to become a tributary on their back. If they're too weak to hold it they should not have an independent realm.

R: Hey, you're my enemy's vassal, right?
V: Ye, I wanted to be neutral but they threatened me
R: Hey, is this your dock? Shame if something happened to it...

Call your sugar daddy for help, if they don't, maybe you just found a better sugar daddy. Make it their problem, not yours. Worst case scenario, you have to choose between weaker buffs or warriors at your gates. If a nation does not need your land, you have not made yourself valuable enough.

Anybody who wants nabs to be a valuable resource to realms is probably a bigger enemy to the nabs than the people who roam around on sneks KOing ppl in dugouts all day.

Do we want even less warfare in Haven? The tug of war between nations is far more exciting than wandering gankers. Threats are stressful, but exciting, I find.

They're super abuseable, and you basically need to be the biggest autist in the game to take advantage of them. Adding even more buffs to realms, or a way to make them realistically outscale what others could reasonably achieve completely ruins industry.

There's always going to be a biggest autist, always will be a gap to lessen. I'm suggesting a means of acknowledging the massive girth of their autism, while allowing your 'others' a share of it. Limiting the size of these nations would also result in more strong, independent realms and localised powers, so group of villages can come together and choose their favorite autist to side with.

Ironically, if realms were made more fun & interesting it would probably make the game way worse because of the social repercussions of more people wanting to interact with & abuse realms.

Could you elaborate? It sounds like your saying reals would be more fun and interesting, there would be more social interaction between villages and realms based around maximising the benefit of the game's mechanics and this would somehow be bad? Could you go into exactly what you mean by abuse? I'd appreciate it.

[azrid]

myeah more fleshed out realm mechanics would b awesome

[LostJustice]

Lets just add more abusable mechanics before fixing the current ones. Rest of the post is a abusable

Explain how they are abusable, Saying they are without explaining is not helpful or good feedback.

won’t help.

won't help what?
More freedom of choice?
More playstyles?
political warfare?
Open up the landscape for other realms to form?

doesn’t fix the fact that there are dummy realms

This literally does fix that as there would be no dummy realms. there would be villages forming together to make a realm rather than 1 village make a random object and are now considered realm owners.

Progressive support base realm creation V build an object.

Your idea does not fix dummy realms. Literally probably promotes them more than anything. Second, just take 2 seconds and think how you can abuse these systems. The fact that you are already making several adjustments to your proposal probably indicates it is a bad idea and not a good mechanic and instead you are just trying to make your idea fit at all costs because of your opinion of what you want realms to be.

[jock]

Your idea does not fix dummy realms. Literally probably promotes them more than anything.

WHAT are you talking about? It removes realms and places the buffs in to villages that build up buffs. how does this promote dummy realms? They collaborate on buffs but it still costs authority having 1 town do x% buff on mining and x% buff on bear quality costs the same as having 2 towns do it separately. there would be zero point it making multiple towns todo something other than attempting to use the collaborative buff bonus.

This literally has a note beside it saying do maths to make sure it's not game-breaking and only reduced the cost if both towns run the same buff at the same % which is inefficient as you basically paying more for the same buff.

Second, just take 2 seconds and think how you can abuse these systems.

Are you trying to troll or just unable to back up your claim? Clearly you might have noticed or misunderstood something so actually explaining it and pointing it out would be useful. constantly say dude... think OMG how bad. is just useless.

already making several adjustments to your proposal

I have made zero adjustments to this document since posting it but yes, having feedback and people being clear should help adjust ideas, it's called scrutinizing your idea before development time is used on it.

scrutiny
/ˈskruːtɪni/
noun
critical observation or examination.

helpful stuff to challenge and improve things, i am a massive fan of someone who can do this in an effective and efficient way. you have failed twice now. please retry,

trying to make your idea fit at all costs because of your opinion of what you want realms to be.

No costs has been accused but when ANYONE puts an idea out there it is literally what they want something to be.


Honestly, i had to take several attempts at responding to your post and i think this very basic and broken down answer is the only way i can even attempt to approached my response. I want feedback, good critical feedback. Edify me on what i have missed and be more clear about what is wrong. SCRUTINY.